U.S.: "No Troops to Syria"

Grey

Verified Military
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
134
Location
Iowa
I just did my persuasive speech in my Public Speaking class on U.S. Intervention in Syria lol. I guess it didn't reach any higher ups like I had hoped. :p
 

SpitfireV

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy!
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
5,111
Location
New Zealand
I remember doing speeches for English at school, they sucked. I did one on "money creates greed" so I held up photos of the Cambridge Five claiming money corrupted them. Didn't realise 'till later they were all ideologicals, ha.

Oh and the teacher was an actual paid up member of the CPNZ back in the 70s I found out later.

Anyway, back on topic, Syria. I don't see a solution coming any time soon but I am reasonably impressed it's kept going this long.
 

Crusader74

Verified Military
Verified Military
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
2,759
Lebanon happened in a similar way... eventually when so many thousands of innocent civilians are killed, they might just ask for the UN to go in with a Chapter. VII peace support mission...
 

JohnnyBoyUSMC

Click, click, boom.
Verified Military
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
659
Location
the bat cave
UN peacekeepers....yea cause that always works so well. Lots of countries don't even want em if asked cause UN peacekeeping operations have gotten a bad rap not just on actually doing anything productive but on multiple counts of rape and spreading of STD's to the local population by the peacekeepers. Oh, and wouldn't you know it, the largest contributor of soldiers to UN peacekeeping operations is Pakistan....surprised anyone?
 

Crusader74

Verified Military
Verified Military
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
2,759
UN peacekeepers....yea cause that always works so well. Lots of countries don't even want em if asked cause UN peacekeeping operations have gotten a bad rap not just on actually doing anything productive but on multiple counts of rape and spreading of STD's to the local population by the peacekeepers. Oh, and wouldn't you know it, the largest contributor of soldiers to UN peacekeeping operations is Pakistan....surprised anyone?


Most of the problems you mentioned have come from 3rd world country contributing countries...Ever since they beefed up Lebanon with a new mandate and more EU countries got involved, it has stabilized..For now... Any of you MI dudes who have an interest in ME policy will be aware that the Hezbollah are looking to go toe to toe again with Israel...
 

JohnnyBoyUSMC

Click, click, boom.
Verified Military
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
659
Location
the bat cave
Most of the problems you mentioned have come from 3rd world country contributing countries...Ever since they beefed up Lebanon with a new mandate and more EU countries got involved, it has stabilized..For now... Any of you MI dudes who have an interest in ME policy will be aware that the Hezbollah are looking to go toe to toe again with Israel...

No surprise there. Hezbollah is a proxy arm of the Iranian quds force for all intents and purposes, and with Israel using the tough talk regarding Iran and their possible development of nukes, it makes sense. Just what that area needs right now.
 

Brill

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
4,842
Location
221B Baker St

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,724
Location
CONUS
Sure thing.

Please cite your sources for the points you make above, I'm not sure I buy it. Yes, the Bosnians were grateful for Iranian support. But how did that work out for the Iranians? And are you really saying that the US did not intervene to help out in Bosnia? I wasn't able to find anything that said Chechnya asked for US involvement. Even if they did, why would it be in our interest to help them out? It would only be another crappy, corrupt, extremist pain-in-the-ass country if it obtained independence from Russia. Not worth us getting involved, IMO.

So, even if we assume that your two statements are true, who are the Syrians going to "turn to" that they're not already in bed with? They're already firmly allied with the Iranians; they are state sponsors of terrorism, they prop up Hezbollah and regularly attack our regional ally, Israel (I'm not even going to cite sources for those two facts). They supported the insurgency in Iraq and are trying to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. My point is, there are no worse outcomes for the US if the status quo continues.

However, there are worse outcomes if the current government is overthrown. Our intervention in Syria, IMO, would only serve to facilitate the formation of a government that is even more sectarian and anti-Western and more out of control than the one currently in place. A revolution in Syria will not result in a democratic, pro-Western government. It will result in a Sunni-dominated, extremist, anti-Western government. The current secular(ish) government will be replaced by a Sunni one, and purges of Christians, Jews, and other minorities will follow. Such a government will create ungoverned space in which terrorist networks can thrive. Syria could turn into a kind of "not as crappy" Afghanistan, with a much more strategic geopolitical position and a much higher GDP.

A US-led intervention in Syria would cost us a lot of money (which we don't have) and probably manpower (which we shouldn't be willing to invest). If the UN or the Arab League want to throw money and manpower at the problem of removing Assad from power... fine. I just don't think it's something we need to be involved in, I don't see national interests at stake and I don't see a better outcome for our country if we support the insurgency.
 

Brill

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
4,842
Location
221B Baker St
Sure thing.

Please cite your sources for the points you make above, I'm not sure I buy it. Yes, the Bosnians were grateful for Iranian support. But how did that work out for the Iranians? And are you really saying that the US did not intervene to help out in Bosnia? I wasn't able to find anything that said Chechnya asked for US involvement. Even if they did, why would it be in our interest to help them out? It would only be another crappy, corrupt, extremist pain-in-the-ass country if it obtained independence from Russia. Not worth us getting involved, IMO.

So, even if we assume that your two statements are true, who are the Syrians going to "turn to" that they're not already in bed with? They're already firmly allied with the Iranians; they are state sponsors of terrorism, they prop up Hezbollah and regularly attack our regional ally, Israel (I'm not even going to cite sources for those two facts). They supported the insurgency in Iraq and are trying to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. My point is, there are no worse outcomes for the US if the status quo continues.

However, there are worse outcomes if the current government is overthrown. Our intervention in Syria, IMO, would only serve to facilitate the formation of a government that is even more sectarian and anti-Western and more out of control than the one currently in place. A revolution in Syria will not result in a democratic, pro-Western government. It will result in a Sunni-dominated, extremist, anti-Western government. The current secular(ish) government will be replaced by a Sunni one, and purges of Christians, Jews, and other minorities will follow. Such a government will create ungoverned space in which terrorist networks can thrive. Syria could turn into a kind of "not as crappy" Afghanistan, with a much more strategic geopolitical position and a much higher GDP.

A US-led intervention in Syria would cost us a lot of money (which we don't have) and probably manpower (which we shouldn't be willing to invest). If the UN or the Arab League want to throw money and manpower at the problem of removing Assad from power... fine. I just don't think it's something we need to be involved in, I don't see national interests at stake and I don't see a better outcome for our country if we support the insurgency.

I should have been more precise as I was referring to the early stages of regional conflicts where Muslims have appealed for Western intervention, like Syria.

The jihadists that stayed in Bosnia have caused significant problems for the Balkans (and elsewhere) and Albanian seperatists. A Google search of "Bosnian terrorist groups" yeilds some interesting hit. The Iranian special services enjoy any disruption in the Western World. "According to Christopher Deliso, author of the seminal The Coming Balkan Caliphate: The Threat of Radical Islam to Europe and the West, ‘By the mid 2005, Bosnia’s strategic value to major international terrorist groups was no longer merely as a logistical base and terrorist transfer zone. Bosnia had instead become both a staging post for terrorist attacks in Europe and a target for attacks itself.’"
http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/...icalization-in-bosnia-and-beyond-part-i-.html

Regarding Chechnya, my information is from people who were close to the issue. I suppose your assumption of the outcome of US support to Chechen seperatist would be possible but I would add that it may be useful to have a group of Muslim people whose survival was directly linked to American intervention. Especially a group that looks just like Americans. Any chance we get to mess with Putin-stan, we should jump on the chance.

I would argue that a new anti-Assad government may be Sunni and it may be anti-minority but it could be up to the people. Syria and Iraq are not Afghanistan. Hell, even African countries are more developed than Afghanistan! The Assad government is pro-Iran however I do not believe that is the case with the Free Syrian Army.

An interventionist investment in Syria would buy us time plus it could create another focal point for jihadists: let them fight there vice coming here. I would advocate sending SF guys in and let them do some old school UW, without the imbeded CNN journalist (Lara Logan would be the exception of course). The proliferation of freedom and liberty is in our national interests...or it used to be anyway.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,724
Location
CONUS
///

An interventionist investment in Syria would buy us time plus it could create another focal point for jihadists: let them fight there vice coming here. I would advocate sending SF guys in and let them do some old school UW, without the imbeded CNN journalist (Lara Logan would be the exception of course). The proliferation of freedom and liberty is in our national interests...or it used to be anyway.

Of course Lara would be your exception ;)

I'm all about tearing up someone else's backyard to keep them from having to fight in ours. But under what scenario do you see a major threat to the homeland developing: 1) the status quo with a brutal but secular(ish) leader who is a pain in the ass but with whom we can negotiate, or 2) an ulta-conservative, undergoverned, militant Islamist country with major internal issues that they need to channel externally? I'm leaning towards #2 as a greater threat.

Now, if there was an option 3) a peaceful, stable, Western-leaning democracy, I'd be willing to support that. But I don't think history is on our side. In the context in which you're using it, I'm interpreting "freedom and liberty" to mean "the ability to choose one's own system of government," is that fair? If so, freedom and liberty are indeed in our interests- as long as people use that freedom and liberty to make what we consider the "right" choices. The problem with freedom and liberty is that people sometimes make what we would consider the wrong choices. Look what freedom and liberty got us in Iran and in Palestine.

Although it's hard for us to understand sometimes, some people either do not want or are not ready for our style of government. A better way to frame our national interests is "rule of law." Countries can adhere to the rule of law and follow international norms without having a government like ours. In the absence of a better alternative, promoting the rule of law is preferable to promoting freedom and liberty overseas in some cases.
 

Brill

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
4,842
Location
221B Baker St

Always.

Of course Lara would be your exception ;)

I'm all about tearing up someone else's backyard to keep them from having to fight in ours. But under what scenario do you see a major threat to the homeland developing: 1) the status quo with a brutal but secular(ish) leader who is a pain in the ass but with whom we can negotiate, or 2) an ulta-conservative, undergoverned, militant Islamist country with major internal issues that they need to channel externally? I'm leaning towards #2 as a greater threat.

Now, if there was an option 3) a peaceful, stable, Western-leaning democracy, I'd be willing to support that. But I don't think history is on our side. In the context in which you're using it, I'm interpreting "freedom and liberty" to mean "the ability to choose one's own system of government," is that fair? If so, freedom and liberty are indeed in our interests- as long as people use that freedom and liberty to make what we consider the "right" choices. The problem with freedom and liberty is that people sometimes make what we would consider the wrong choices. Look what freedom and liberty got us in Iran and in Palestine.

Although it's hard for us to understand sometimes, some people either do not want or are not ready for our style of government. A better way to frame our national interests is "rule of law." Countries can adhere to the rule of law and follow international norms without having a government like ours. In the absence of a better alternative, promoting the rule of law is preferable to promoting freedom and liberty overseas in some cases.

There is no negotiation with Assad: he has been a pain "in our assholes" on the diplomatic front. I don't follow the Iran and "palestine" refs though. When was Iran free to chose its own form of government? I guess they did in '79 but it seems some folks wanted a change when the Basij went nuts on the green revoltion.

I completely agree that not all folks want/need/dream about our form of government but they should at least be able to chose...or in case of the wealthy Gulf State, get bought off by their governments. ;) It's all about life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness and no longer about the 30 weight ball bearings of yesteryear.

The Balkans and the Central Asian states are good examples, in my opinion. Sure they're not carbon copies of The United States but not bad given their short history of free governments. How long did it take the US to get its shit together? I'm not sure past tense here is appropriate though. :hmm:
 

pardus

Verified Military
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
9,976
How about where instead:

Phillipines, Grenada, for example.

Yep, but there are many more that the USA put in power/supported that a lot of people would say were not exactly flowing with freedom and liberty...

Again I think it comes down to a small/big picture mentality, your perspective will change the view dramatically.
 
Top